Again and again, and especially during the election season, we read in the media about "people of faith," "religious Americans" and "value voters" -- and what is meant, in almost all cases, are Americans who are conservative in both their religion and their politics. There is nothing wrong with being a conservative, of course, but we liberal people of faith like to point out that there are other kinds of believers in America. In fact, there are a lot of us.
What exactly does it mean to be a liberal person of faith?
It means to believe in God, to have deep religious convictions and to be offended whenever media voices pour scorn on religious people.
It means to draw on religious teachings and beliefs when making judgments about matters of public policy. But at the same time, it means to know that when we, as people of faith, make a public argument, we must ground our statements in reason and a language of morality that is accessible to everyone -- to people of different religions, for example, or of no religion. After all, we recognize that other believers have religious convictions different from our own, and in our diverse democracy, Americans need a common political discourse not dominated by exclusivist theology.
It means to understand that "person of faith" does not only mean the Religious Right; it is, in fact, an inclusive term, referring to both liberals and conservatives and to Christians and Jews of all persuasions, as well as to Muslims, Hindus and believers from other religious traditions.
It means to always bring a measure of humility to religious belief. In making our religious judgments, we liberal persons of faith draw on the sacred texts of our tradition, but we don't claim to have a direct line to heaven, and we aren't always sure that we know God's will.
It means being concerned about the poor and the needy, and giving a fair shake to all. When people talk about God and yet ignore justice, it feels downright wrong to us. When they cloak themselves in religion and ignore mercy, it strikes us as blasphemous.
It means to believe that sanctity exists in the commitment that gay couples make to each other. We recognize that more conservative religious people are likely to see this matter very differently, but we oppose, absolutely and unequivocally, unprincipled gay bashing and hateful rhetoric that fuels the hell-fires of anti-gay bigotry.
And it means that we share many of the concerns of conservative people of faith. Like them, we are concerned about the coarsening of culture that makes it difficult to raise honorable, decent children. Like them, we worry about trashy TV and the erosion of the family. And like them, we believe that the public interest does depend, at least in part, on private virtue -- even as we know that justice requires not only good individuals but also the actions of government.
And finally, it means that we welcome dialogue with our fellow citizens who have a more conservative religious viewpoint. It seems healthy to us for people of faith to talk about how our differing religious perspectives help us understand the issues of the day. After all, we have all put our trust in America, the most religiously diverse country in the world. And we all believe that tolerance is an American value. So let the dialogue begin.
I guess all Buddhists and Hindus are conservative. Sucks for them.
Even many Judeo-Christian types would not characterize their understanding or sense of or orientation towards or commitment to the divine as a "belief", or characterize that which they call God as a thing to be believed in. So I find the term difficult even here.
I can forgive, of course, as talking about religion in terms of belief is so pervasive. But it still bums me out - particularly in a definition about more progressive Christians. Have higher expectations for more flexible language, maybe :)
Not all Buddhists like it when people call their way of life a "religion". Many Hindus worship a host of personal gods, and may not take offense at having their belief characterized as "believing in [at least one] God".
It may be that we can all give each other a little more slack.
According to Miles’ Law “Where you stand depends on where you sit.”
To those who are more liberal, you may be a conservative. To those who are more conservative, you may be liberal. To those with unwavering faith, you may be an unbeliever. While to an devout atheist you be overly religious.
Don’t worry about the labels. What is more important is to keep your mind open to the possibilities. That is what it means to be a ______ person _____.
A warning to you: Don't take subjectivism too far. It's a good mental exercise but if everything is entirely subjective, then nothing has any meaning. If you want to play with this, be productive and start all your conversations with detailed definitions of the words you're using.
It means to believe in God, to have deep religious convictions and to be offended whenever media voices pour scorn on religious people."
Here's another way of putting it:
What exactly does it mean to be a liberal person of faith?
It means to be a 21st century person who believes (despite the complete absence of evidence) in the literal existence of an iron aged tribal middle eastern deity called Yahweh.
You can hide behind benign sounding words like "god" or "open mindedness" as much as you want, but this will not cover up just how ludicrous it is to keep harboring these beliefs in this day and age.
Just trying to explain it, that's all.
Have a fun liberally worshiping your deity and spending time telling and retelling one specific ancient tribal middle eastern legend.
1. I am incredibly angry.
2. That i am uninformed.
3. That i think i have everything figured out.
I happen to be none of those things. But what is most interesting (not to mention ironic) is how you seem to think that because certain things are still unknown, or because there is more to life than what the scientific process can inform us on, that this somehow points to, or vindicates, a subjective interpretation of one specific ancient tribal middle eastern campfire legend.
How silly.
I have found this tactic to be very typical of apologist when confronted with the dirty facts of their religion. But I guess it must be a lot easier to attack the messenger than to defend their out-dated, primitive, myth and superstition based religions.
The biggest threat to all religion is Free Speech.